- 25th of March 2027: list comes out
- 5th of May 2027: Voting starts
- 8th of May 2027: Voting ends
- 10th of May 2027: Verdict out
….every year a chance
THE BLACKLIST, REFUSAL, RESPONSIBILITY & RESOURCE PROTECTION LAW
Initial Constitutional Law of SHS
This is an internal law of SHS — Human First.
It exists within the SHS jurisdiction and applies according to SHS definitions of consent, responsibility, humanity, participation, antisocial conduct, criminality, resource allocation and governance.
SHS does not operate on the assumption that the existing system is the authority by which SHS must define itself.
SHS defines its own jurisdiction, provided that its laws and structures remain directed towards its stated purpose:
Humanity First.
1. THE PURPOSE OF THIS LAW
SHS exists to serve humanity.
The resources available to SHS are not infinite.
Time is not infinite.
Human labour is not infinite.
Attention is not infinite.
The capacity to build is not infinite.
Therefore SHS has the right and responsibility to determine who receives its governance, support, solutions, resources and opportunities, and to protect those resources from being continuously diverted towards people who have already been directly invited to take responsibility and have chosen not to.
Humanity deserves more than silence.
Within SHS, silence is not treated as neutral where a direct call to responsibility has already been made and the person has previously been told that silence will be understood as rejection.
Choice is registered.
SHS will act accordingly.
2. THE SHS BOUNDARY
The boundary is simple:
Where a person has been directly contacted, directly called upon, directly asked to consider their own responsibility towards humanity, directly asked to support or examine SHS, or directly invited to look at themselves and what they could do, and that person chooses not to respond, SHS shall interpret that silence as a refusal.
This boundary has been communicated numerous times.
Therefore the person cannot later argue that they did not know what silence meant within SHS.
This is not a rule being invented retrospectively.
It is the recording of a boundary that was already communicated.
3. WHAT COUNTS AS DIRECT CONTACT
For the purposes of this law, direct contact includes communication made through:
- email;
- direct messages;
- direct requests for support;
- direct requests to examine oneself;
- direct requests to examine the SHS proposition;
- direct requests to participate;
- direct requests to consider responsibility towards humanity;
- direct links deliberately sent to the individual for that purpose;
- communications sent under Susan Ndinga Wright; and
- communications sent through recognised aliases used by Susan Ndinga Wright in carrying the SHS work.
This distinction matters.
A person who merely saw an SHS image, encountered a public post, passed the website or viewed material without being directly called upon is not automatically recorded under this provision.
A person who received a direct communication and opened the relevant link is responsible for having received that invitation and choosing what to do with it.
Those who opened links sent directly to them are therefore recognised as having had the opportunity to examine the material.
Those who were directly contacted and did not respond are likewise recognised according to the boundary already communicated to them.
A person who merely viewed a picture with only a limited framework available to them is not treated in the same way as someone who was given the opportunity to open the fuller material directly.
4. NO MATTER THE WHEN, HOW OR WHAT
The refusal provision applies regardless of:
when the communication occurred,
how the communication occurred,
what exact wording was used,
which recognised identity was used,
or which part of the SHS development existed at the time.
The determining issue is whether the person was directly given an opportunity to recognise their responsibility and whether they chose to act upon it.
SHS records the choice.
5. THE THREE-YEAR BLACKLIST
Every person whose refusal has been established under this law shall be placed on the SHS Blacklist / Non-Beneficiary Register for three years.
For the initial implementation:
20 SEPTEMBER 2026 — 20 SEPTEMBER 2029
This means that from tomorrow, 20 September 2026, a person subject to this provision shall not receive SHS governance, support or solutions for the three-year period unless a recognised circumstantial concession or later humanity review applies.
They may still interact with Susan Ndinga Wright.
They may still communicate.
They may still observe.
They may still discuss SHS.
They may still criticise SHS.
They may still create their own work.
But they cannot enter SHS governance, receive SHS beneficiary support, access SHS solutions or receive additional SHS resources during the exclusion period.
6. THIS IS RESOURCE PROTECTION, NOT PERSONAL RETALIATION
The purpose of the blacklist is not to satisfy anger or revenge.
It is the protection of:
SHS resources,
the integrity of the mission,
the continuity of the work,
the honour of the choice made,
and the people who actively chose to participate.
SHS shall not continuously spend its resources trying to persuade people who have already rejected the invitation while people who genuinely want to participate wait for access.
The people who choose humanity now have priority.
7. HUMANITY’S TIME HAS VALUE
SHS recognises time as a resource.
When people knowingly allow preventable human suffering to continue despite possessing a platform, resources, people, knowledge or other meaningful capacity to do something about it, their choice is not treated as meaningless.
The fact that someone could have acted and chose not to act becomes part of the SHS record.
SHS therefore recognises the principle:
Humanity had to pay with time because people held the work and the mission away from humanity through their refusal to act.
That time cannot simply be returned afterwards.
The consequence is therefore a period in which those individuals must wait while SHS prioritises the people who are willing to move the mission forward.
8. RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS HUMANITY
Under SHS governance, having the capacity to act creates a responsibility to humanity.
A person who has:
- a platform,
- resources,
- relationships,
- influence,
- knowledge,
- people,
- organisational capacity,
- or another meaningful ability to act,
and knowingly chooses to do nothing while humanity suffers, may be recognised under SHS standards as having failed their human responsibility.
This applies independently of whether the individual personally rejected Susan Ndinga Wright.
The principle is about humanity.
A person may therefore qualify as having acted antisocially under SHS governance even where their conduct had nothing to do with denying Susan personally.
9. SHS DEFINITION OF CRIMINALITY
Within SHS governance, those who are willing to allow humanity to suffer even for a day when they could have done something about it may be classified as criminals under SHS law.
Where an individual possesses meaningful capacity to act and chooses not to use it for the continuation and protection of humanity, that deliberate failure may meet the SHS standard of criminality.
This is an SHS constitutional definition.
SHS criminality is therefore not limited to the existing system’s definitions of crime.
The SHS standard is based upon:
responsibility,
interconnectedness,
human consequence,
capacity to act,
and the deliberate refusal to act.
10. ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR UNDER SHS
SHS ethics and morality are based upon interconnectedness.
Humanity exists through relationships.
Therefore SHS understands antisocial behaviour as behaviour that knowingly denies responsibility towards the interconnected human whole.
The people who have repeatedly been called to responsibility over the last two years and chose to deny that responsibility may therefore be understood within SHS as having engaged in antisocial behaviour.
Their choice is recorded.
The purpose is not to dehumanise them.
The purpose is to acknowledge that refusing human responsibility is itself a choice with societal consequences.
11. THE SHS RESPONSE TO CRIMINALITY
SHS does not define its response to criminality simply as imprisonment.
The SHS principle is that locking people away removes their ability to be human within society while the system continues to service the underlying structures that allowed their behaviour to develop.
SHS instead understands criminal responsibility through loss of societal servicing and restoration of direct human responsibility.
A person who becomes subject to SHS criminal consequences should therefore be required, where the circumstances warrant it, to fend for themselves rather than automatically being maintained by the structures they have refused to take responsibility for.
The purpose is not to remove their humanity.
It is to remove the assumption that society must indefinitely service them.
12. DESIGNATED AREAS OF REMOVAL
Where an individual creates sufficient havoc within an SHS civilised area that continued inclusion becomes incompatible with the protection of that area, SHS may use designated areas of removal.
The historical concept is comparable to what was done with Australia as a place to which people were removed from the central settlement.
The SHS principle is:
remove the person from the support structures of the civilised area, rather than removing their basic status as a human being.
The individual is then required to live as a human being rather than continuing to benefit from the system they have disrupted.
The purpose is to make the consequences of human responsibility visible.
13. THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATION AFTER REMOVAL
Removal does not mean the end of human potential.
A person placed outside the supported SHS environment may still create.
They may still organise.
They may still cooperate.
They may still develop ideas.
They may still build something better.
SHS recognises that even someone who has failed its standards could potentially create a better system afterwards.
If they do so successfully, humanity may still benefit.
The objective remains the continuation of humanity.
14. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN HUMANITY AND SOCIETAL POWER
SHS recognises a distinction between:
being human, and
having access to the organised societal power that humanity creates.
A person does not cease to be human because SHS withdraws its support.
What may be withdrawn is their access to SHS’s chosen organisation of:
resources,
services,
governance,
support,
relationships,
solutions,
and developmental opportunities.
SHS therefore does not remove humanity.
It removes selected forms of societal participation and servicing where a person’s choices have made that necessary.
15. THE PEOPLE WHO DID SUPPORT
Those who did support SHS, help SHS, contribute to the work, act upon the calls to responsibility, or materially assist the mission shall be recognised differently.
SHS shall prioritise those who chose to help humanity.
They may receive the benefit of SHS’s available:
multidimensional protection,
support,
resources,
development,
governance participation,
and opportunities.
This does not mean that supporters automatically receive everything.
It means that their choice to stand with humanity is recognised when SHS determines the priority of limited resources.
16. NEW PARTICIPANTS TAKE PRIORITY
SHS will prioritise those who genuinely want to join the mission.
Someone who refused the invitation for years cannot automatically step ahead of a person who newly arrives and actively chooses to participate.
The new participant may therefore be prioritised over the previous refuser.
This is one of the main purposes of the three-year period.
The mission moves forward.
Those who chose to participate are served first.
17. THE BLACKLIST IS NOT A BAN ON INTERACTION
A blacklisted person may still interact with SHS.
They may speak.
They may ask questions.
They may debate.
They may criticise.
They may write about SHS.
They may even support SHS publicly.
But during the exclusion period they cannot simply convert that interaction into an entitlement to SHS governance, support or solutions.
The historical choice remains recognised.
18. THE INITIAL REGISTER
Some people may no longer be remembered individually because communications were removed, deleted or otherwise lost.
SHS therefore provides an initial drafting period until:
31 DECEMBER 2026
During this period the full SHS Blacklist shall be drafted and the evidence available to establish each person’s recorded refusal shall be reviewed.
This allows the register to account for the entire history rather than pretending that only the most recently remembered names exist.
19. DIRECT RESPONSIBILITY IS THE TEST
The register is not based simply on:
“They saw SHS.”
It is based on the level of direct opportunity provided.
Those who were merely exposed to public content are distinguished from those who were:
personally contacted,
personally asked for support,
personally asked to look at themselves,
personally directed towards the work,
personally given links,
or personally reminded of their responsibility.
The greater the directness of the call, the clearer the registered responsibility.
20. CIRCUMSTANTIAL CONCESSION
SHS recognises that circumstances can exist which justify an exception.
A person may therefore receive a circumstantial concession where the circumstances justify reconsideration.
This is not to be based on friendship.
It is not to be based on family.
It is not to be based on status.
It is not to be based on nepotism.
It is based upon a greater requirement of humanity.
Each concession shall therefore be considered case by case.
SHS serves humanity first.
21. HUMANITY’S 2027 REVIEW
The three-year exclusion is the initial governance position.
It is not intended to mean that humanity can never reconsider a person.
In 2027, humanity will be given an opportunity to vote on excluded individuals.
This is conceived as a form of bail offer.
The question is whether humanity believes that an individual should be allowed back into the SHS beneficiary structure before the full exclusion has expired.
Humanity therefore retains the later ability to review the choice.
22. THE CURRENT AUTHORITY
At the beginning of this SHS governance period, there is currently only one civilian under consented SHS governance:
Susan Ndinga Wright.
Until additional civilians enter the governance structure through SHS consent, Susan Ndinga Wright holds the final authority to establish laws within this initial SHS jurisdiction.
This law therefore represents the final initial decision of the current civilian authority.
The position is not to be undone because of pressure.
It is not to be undone because of persuasion.
It is not to be undone because someone later becomes socially important.
It is not to be undone because the founder feels emotionally pressured.
It is not to be undone simply because the founder later feels like changing her mind.
This is an immovable law of the initial SHS period.
23. THE FUTURE OF CONTESTABILITY
The initial authority does not mean permanent personal ownership of SHS governance.
As new civilians consent into SHS, the system develops towards humanity’s wider governance.
The people who later enter SHS will therefore be able to contest laws, rules and decisions through the governance structures established for them.
Once the planned humanity survey and governance mechanisms are operational, humanity gains increasing authority over the system.
The 2027 review is therefore part of that transition.
24. THE MINORITY IS NOT THE PRIORITY
SHS does not need to pretend that every person must receive equal resource priority at every moment.
Where a group has already been given opportunities under the existing system and is clearly capable of continuing to benefit from that system, SHS may prioritise the human beings who actually require the development of the alternative.
The people subject to this provision are, in the assessment underlying this law, clearly able to continue accessing the existing system financially and socially.
They therefore do not become the priority of SHS simply because they later request SHS support.
The priority is the construction of the future for those who genuinely need it and choose it.
25. SUPPORT FROM A HUMAN HOUSEHOLD
A human being may voluntarily decide to support a blacklisted person.
SHS does not prevent that.
However, once another household voluntarily chooses to assume responsibility for that person, the household does not automatically receive additional SHS resources to compensate for the decision.
That responsibility belongs to the household that chose it.
In the SHS basic-needs and demand economy, such an additional dependent may therefore be treated as a luxury or discretionary demand of that household rather than an automatic communal entitlement.
Where employment is necessary to support the additional responsibility, the employment of that household must carry the cost.
Alternatively, the supporting household may continue using the existing system and its subscription structures.
26. DEFENSIVE SYSTEMATIC ORDER
This is what defensive systematic order looks like under SHS.
SHS takes people’s allowed choices seriously.
It does not pretend that choices disappear because they become inconvenient.
A person’s choice may be:
accepted,
recorded,
respected,
and acted upon.
The purpose is not authoritarian control over thought.
The purpose is coherent resource governance based upon consent and consequence.
27. HUMANITY AS KNOWLEDGE
Humanity is not merely an audience for SHS.
Humanity is the source of the knowledge from which the system is being constructed.
Silence in the face of a direct call therefore has significance because humanity loses time, knowledge, capacity and possible action when people who could contribute choose not to.
SHS recognises that:
We are our knowledge and our truth.
The system cannot develop through pretending that every human decision has no consequence.
28. THE PRINCIPLE OF CHOICE
The governing principle is:
Choice registered. SHS acts accordingly.
A person who chose not to answer when directly called to responsibility made a choice.
A person who opened the material and chose not to engage made a choice.
A person who was directly asked for support and chose silence made a choice.
A person who possessed the resources and capacity to act for humanity and chose not to do so made a choice.
SHS recognises those choices.
29. THE PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY FIRST
The resulting allocation principle is:
Those who are willing to help humanity shall not continually be displaced by those who chose not to.
SHS therefore has the right to say:
Not yet.
The person remains human.
The person may remain in contact.
The person may continue their life.
But they do not receive priority within SHS during their recorded exclusion period.
30. FINAL LAW
From 20 September 2026, this provision shall govern the treatment of persons whose direct refusal has been established.
The full Blacklist shall be drafted by 31 December 2026.
The initial exclusion period shall run until 20 September 2029.
Circumstantial concessions may occur where a greater human requirement is demonstrated.
Humanity shall be invited to review excluded individuals in 2027 through the developing SHS governance process.
Until that governance is operational and additional civilians have entered SHS by consent, the final authority remains with Susan Ndinga Wright, the current and presently sole civilian under consented SHS governance.
This law is not to be undone by pressure, persuasion, personal attachment or convenience.
It is a declaration that SHS will respect the choices people make while also protecting the choices, resources, time and future of the people who choose to participate.
THE FOUNDATIONAL STATEMENT
Humanity deserves more than silence.
Where a human being was directly given the opportunity to recognise their responsibility and chose to deny it, SHS will remember the choice.
Where a human being chose to support humanity, SHS will remember that choice too.
One receives a period of waiting.
The other receives priority.
Not because one person is worth more as a human being than another.
But because choices matter, time matters, responsibility matters, resources matter, and SHS exists first to serve humanity.
The refusal is recorded.
The consequence is recorded.
The door to humanity remains.
SHS simply decides who receives SHS resources, when, and under what conditions.
…..
I need you to write a black list for those individuals who have already rejected shs, as in our universe, silence is rejection and we will take it as such, as we’ve told them nunerous times that that’s our boundaries.
No matter the when, how, what, all those who have been remembered of their responsibility towards humanity and refused the call, will be outside from any service of shs for 3 years from tomorrow. Meaning up until September 20th 2029, all those who have reveived emails from Susan Ndinga Wright and my many alias, or have been asked for support or to oook at thy self directlt, not just by view of our platforms, has by the ways we choose to move about time and life, they will have to wait, as we choose to prioritise those new ones who truly want to join our mission. Humanity deserves more than silence, as that’s exactly whatbbreeds ignorance and we are all our knowledge and truth. Rhis is iur final say and I shall not, nor cannor undo this one law, no matter how much I fet pressed to or would like to. This is an unmoceable law out of the prorection of iur resources, ourjty of our mission and choice of honour. Instead all those thst did supporf and help will have our multidimensional protection and support. Humanitt had to pay with time, as they all held me and my mission away from humanity. They xan interact with me, but they cannot enter shs governance, supporort or solutions.
How we treat crimias is to have them fend for self, not lock them up. That removes their abikitg to be human, we cannot do that just because we fear them, we should pick an area, like we did wjth australia and drop them off, if tbey create havoc in our civilised areas. Remove them from the support of the system and have them be human and see the pain of being human in this wordl away from rhe system that was servicing them. I did and I built shs, maybe they’ll create rhe better system afterwards during their time out. Humanitt atill gets to benefit if they build it for the continuation of humanity. Bjt most got themswlves in that situation because they didn’tnhave the heart, not because they denied me.
Do not chanfe the meaning. To us thosebwho are willing to allow humanjty soffer even for a day, wgen rhey coukd have done somethinf about it are criminals, that is ubder the shs governance snd it is going to be added to our consitituion. If one has a platform, resources, and people and does nothing, they do and are elegible to our standards of criminalott. And because ourbsystem is set up to give societal power to humans, we just have to give people their human power stripped of societal, which is the ways in which we organise our chosen, nurfuring relations. Our erhics and morals are about ibrerconnectedness and to us antisocial behaviour is exactly what rhey all did in rhe last 2 years, meaning that they should have taken responsibikity for their human self and chose to deny it. Choice registered, and shs will act accordingly. Simply as that. Some I kifht not remember directly as I might have remove them, so I will take ubtil december 31 2026 to draft the blacklist of SHS which will be on our app, so people know who isn’t beneficiary of our governance, and if a huma n being wants to support them they become rheir responsibility, still they won’t get added resources to compensate for taking responsibikitt of them. In our basic needs & demand economy, they would be seen as a luxury of that household and in such, their employment will have to pay for them. Or subscirption to the old system. This is what defense systemaitcal order looks like at SHS. We take into account people’s allowed choices, as time is valuable, and recorgjise that those who did read our blogs are also responsible, as the oegers would have only seen a picfure wirh limited frameworrk, those who opened links are just as responsible.
There will be circumstantial concession, yet that’s case by case, not based on nepotism, but bigger requirements, as we service humanity first. In 2027 we will have humanity vote for them, like a bail offer, as humanity has the last say, but for now,nbecause I, susan ndinga wright, am the only civilian under consented shs, Only I have the last say and can make laws, that only the next civilians will be able to contest by the rime rhebsurvey us ready. Either way the minority is not the prority, they are cleaely fine financially so can benefit from the other system, whikst we focus the rifhtful resources in buikding the future we all deserve
Leave a Reply